' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- The facts giving rise to this Constitution Petition are that the petitioner is owner of Shop No,2. There are 4 other shops constructed on Plot No,291, P.I.B. Colony Karachi and the respondent No,1 is tenant in respect of the said shop. The petitioner filed ejectment applicant before VIIIth Rent Controller Karachi East, on two grounds;(a) default in payment of rent from August 1997 till filing of the rent application;(b) bona fide personal need. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 28-2-2008 on the ground of personal need. Ground of default in payment of rent was not believed by the Rent Controller and therefore that ground was rejected. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller the petitioner/tenant filed an appeal before IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi East. Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 1-12-2006 and the Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. This Constitution Petition was filed on 11-1-2007, notice was ordered for the respondent No,1/landlord.
Initially the notice was not served and was repeated a number of time. When the case came for hearing on 30-9-2007. Report of the Bailiff was taken on record that notice had been duly served on respondent No,1. Arguments of the Advocate of the petitioner were heard and judgment was reserved.
2. Learned counsel has argued that there are 5 shops in the building and rent cases were initiated against all the 5 tenants. Other cases were decided in favour of landlord. However, Appellate Court has remanded the matters to the Rent Controller. He further submitted that landlord did not disclose in his ejectment application and it reflects mala fide on part of the landlord. He has further stated that bona fide personal requirement of the landlord has not been established. Another ground that was taken in the Constitution Petition was that tenancy was between petitioner No,2 who is mother of petitioner No,1 and respondent No,1 and ejectment application was filed by the respondent No,1 in first place and his mother was subsequently joined as applicant in the Court of Rent Controller. The learned counsel relied upon Allies Book Corporation v. Sultan Ahmed 2006 SCMR 152, Ghulam Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Khalid 2000 CLC 764 and unreported judgment by a Single Judge of this Court in First Rent Appeal No,115 of 1986.
3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire record of the petition. Brief facts of Allies Book Corporation's case (Supra) were that petitioner in that case was owner of a building. Her husband expired leaving behind the wife and children as his legal heirs. The widow filed application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance for eviction of the respondent in the matter on the ground of inter alia, personal bona fide need. The ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and appeal was allowed by the High Court remanding the case to the Rent Controller. After remand the application was again dismissed and appeal from that order was also dismissed by the District Judge, as by that time the appellate forum had been changed from High Court to District Judge.
The High Court in writ petition set aside concurrent findings of the two Courts below. In respect of personal bona fide need the Supreme Court observed that the factum of any shop on the ground floor having become vacant was not disclosed by the landlord and that concealment by the landlord of one or more premises having fallen vacant during pendency of the ejectment proceedings would reflect adversely on bona fide of his personal need and would be detrimental to his case.
4. In Ghulam Muhammad Khan's case dishonesty of the landlord and unreasonableness of purpose were manifestly visualized from the facts that admittedly at the time of commencement of tenancy the landlord has received Rs,1,25,000 as goodwill and then set up a case of default in payment of rent which he could not prove and was constrained by the circumstances to abandon such plea, and secondly as regards plea of personal bona fide need he filed affidavit of his son which was admittedly a false statement on oath.
5. In the unreported case of FRA 115 of 1986 ejectment of a number of tenements was sought on the ground that there were 34 family members of landlord. When it was pointed out that some of the family members are not children of the landlord but in fact brother and children of brother of the landlord, the matter was remanded. After remand it was pleaded that there are 14 family members. By relying upon PLD 1984 Karachi 14, wherein it had been held that if landlord does not disclose in his application that he is also owner of another flat in the same area, the suppression of this fact would mean that the landlord has not come to the Court with clean hands and therefore his bona fide requirement is not proved.
6. In the present case, the landlord has specially stated in Para 4 of his ejectment application that there are other tenants also who were carrying business in shop in the said building. The landlord has alleged collusion by the tenants and has clearly disclosed that thereafter he had filed identical ejectment applications. Thus, there has been no concealment of facts by the landlord. Therefore, the case law cited by the petitioner is distinguishable. The landlord in this case has not come to the Court with un-cleaned hands.
7. As far as, merits of the case of the landlord in respect of bona fide personal need are concerned, the learned Rent Controller has primarily relied upon Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Mst. Saeeda Bano 1993 SCMR 1559 where it was held that landlady requirement would not lack bona fides if she wanted her son to be established in business in demised premises instead of remaining employed.
As regards finding of fact that the landlord required the premises for bona fide personal reasons it has been accepted by the trial Court on the following words:-- "In order to prove this point the applicant has filed his personal affidavit in evidence in which he has narrated the facts mentioned in the ejectment application which are not re-produced here for the sake of brevity. The applicant has examined himself on the point of personal need and was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the Opponent. The applicant's evidence remained unshaken. The applicant firmly with stand the test of cross-examination. The learned Advocate for the Opponent failed to shake the evidence produced by the applicant on this point.
The personal need of the applicant appears to be bona fide. I have also noted the demeanor of the applicant. The applicant appears to be truthful person with regard to his personal need."
8. The finding of fact has been concurred with by the Appellate Court. There are concurrent findings of facts and High Court would be loathed in entering upon adjudication or reappraisal of evidence where there are concurrent findings of facts by two forums below.
9. For the above reasons I do not find any merits in this petition and same is consequently dismissed along with the listed application. The parties shall bear their own costs.